Thank you for that reply however it does not really answer the question. Has the Ruskin museum given permission for K7 to be run on Bute. A yes or know would suffice.
The wording of your reply seems to indicate the dispute has not been resolved at all and you are going your own way. Does that not risk the Ruskin Museum trustees taking action to prevent K7 running on Bute and thus those who want to see it run could be out of pocket. You say that would not be of your doing however it really is very much within you ability to stop such loss. If you are aware the Trustees have not given permission as owners and you continue then you must bare responsibility.

BTW for some time I have been meaning to ask what premium an insurance company requires for third party public liability, I assume such cover is in place. I only ask because it costs our model boat club an arm and a leg to insure to insure members and the committee against third party action. Insurance for the 1/6th Gas Turbine model is bad enough.

You mean like what happened to people who booked accommodation in Coniston this year?

The public wants to see K7 run and we are prepared to provide that opportunity. Alternatively, we just say we're not doing it and in so doing we deny everyone that chance from the get-go. But we're not doing that - we're offering that chance and plan to deliver it. If for any reason it doesn't happen it most certainly won't be because of anything we do.

Our third party cover was surprisingly reasonable, actually. It ran only to three figures.

I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

With respect your reply indicates a right to do what you think is correct as opposed to what the actual owners of the boat wish if they are opposed to it running again on Bute. In many ways Bill you appear to have assumed the rights of an owner, is that not an unwise and difficult path to tread. Until ownership is decided it seems to me to be unwise to just make assumptions. Your last reply is a clear indication that the Ruskin has not authorised K7 going to Bute? You have moved significantly from what was agreed back in 2006 and that is regretful. I have to ask, are you never going to give K7 back to the Ruskin unless you get a contract of your choice signed. Are you prepared to keep it for how many years you deem appropriate.

None of this is personal, I had made it clear many times that my only motivation is seeing what was agreed originally complied with.

I have to ask, are you never going to give K7 back to the Ruskin unless you get a contract of your choice signed. Are you prepared to keep it for how many years you deem appropriate.

Lost count of how many times we've explained this. The boat can go in the museum soon as the 2013 agreement is fine tuned and signed off

my only motivation is seeing what was agreed originally complied with

and we have nothing to add or take away from it. The museum had no issues with it at the time so presumably any changes would be minimal from their side too. We said it could be in there by the end of this year, assuming we get the restoration work finished. How simple can it be?

I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

Bill please enlighten my aged brain. Exactly what do the trustees have to sign off on? All was signed off in 2006. They apparently don't agree with what you wanted signed in 2013. Why would they sign something in 2013 relating to that which they already own? The trustees just expect K7 back and that's what you agreed to do back in 2006. No matter how much time and effort you have put into the rebuild you cannot just assume the rights of ownership and do with it as you wish. At what point in time did you decide to deviate from what was agreed and more importantly why?

Thank you for taking time to answer questions from someone who is simply trying to understand why you wont comply with the original signed agreement. At the end of the day the court of public opinion, I am not satisfied there is that much interest, counts for nothing in the court of legal argument/decisions.

The Ruskin trustees have legal responsibilities, they are decent people who are probably sick of the entire dispute but they cannot just ignore what is written down and signed. To do so would be a gross dereliction of their duties. For you to expect otherwise is unfair.

It's all very simple really, we have always conducted ourselves in accordance with both the 2006 agreement (which, incidentally has always had questions about its validity that have nothing to do with us) and the 2013 agreement. The museum owns what they were given, ie the wreckage and we own the rest. We are happy with both the 2006 and 2013 agreements as they stand so we're good to go.

I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

'Sometimes you gotta be an S.O.B if you wanna make a dream reality' Mark Knopfler

That does not answer the questions raised but no matter. If we accept that the Ruskin owns half of K7, I believe they own the lot, then that still gives the Trustees the right to determine what happens to their property. You cannot take that right away from them. If they don't want their property used in a manner they don't agree with that's it really is it not. Do you not believe in the rights of an owner?

I notice the bit in the times today, interesting you refer to the 2013 agreement however it is clear there is not one is there. Some e mail dialogue or telephone exchanges not agreed with and not followed up do not amount to an agreement. It takes two to agree with something for it to be become accepted. During the six years following your submitted agreement the trustees have obviously not followed it up or agreed with it yet you ploughed on regardless. It may have been better to seek clarification long before the current situation. It may have prevented unpleasantness and wasted money.

With respect Ernie Lazenby, I would suggest it is time for you to stop sh*t-stirring.

You want to discuss rights and wrongs, who owns what or does not, I suggest you do it over the phone or face-to-face instead of sh*t-stirring on a public forum. You write in such a way as to be deliberatley antagonistic and frankly, it is becoming repetative, boring and quite frankly, a joke (to me anyway).

I know I, for one, am sick of your stirring, I am sure others are as well however "well meaning" you want it to be or whether you want straight answers posted in a public place. I beleive the situation has been made as clear as it can be on a public, referenceable, platform.

Just cos my username is Thunderer, doesn't necessarily mean I SHOUT !!
"A vehicle is designed to be used, restored or otherwise" A personal response on the question "you have just restored it, why use it?"